WILLIAM ROUSER V. JARED LOZANO, No. 21-15608 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM ROUSER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15608 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01009-KJM-JDP MEMORANDUM* JARED LOZANO; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. William Rouser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. To the extent that Rouser’s claims challenged the denial of parole or would otherwise necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration of his confinement, the district court properly concluded that the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that Rouser’s claims challenged parole procedures, dismissal was also proper because Rouser failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (in parole context, due process requires only that a prisoner be provided with an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S 722, 752-53 (1991) (where there is no constitutional right to counsel there can be no deprivation of effective assistance). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 21-15608 in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Rouser’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 21-15608

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.